Longhenry/Olson Debate on Baptism
Lloyd Olson's Second Rebuttal
Proposition:
The Scriptures teach that immersion in water for the remission of
sin is necessary for salvation.
Affirm: Ethan R. Longhenry (ELDV)
Deny: Lloyd A. Olson (LAO)
OUTLINE OF SECOND DENIAL
I. REMISSION OF SINS.
__A. Great Commission
__B. National Israel
__C. Saving Faith
II. SALVATION
__A. Justification and Sanctification.
__B. 2 Cor 5:19-21
III. REBUT OF SPECIFIC VERSES.
__A. Mark 16:16 Dubious Foundation
__B. Acts 2:38: Israel.
__C. Acts 8:34-37: The Grilling
__D. Acts 10:47 Temporal Sequence
__E. Rom 6: Book Context
__F. Gal 3:26-27: Spiritual Language
__G. I Pet 3:19-21: OT Context.
__H. One Baptism
III. CONCLUSION.
I. REMISSION OF SIN.
ELDV's 1st Affirm:
"remission of sins" relates to water baptism and is required for
salvation.
LAO's 1st Denial: Basic linguistics teaches that the definition
of any word depends on CONTEXT. Hence the phrase has three
meanings associated with three different contexts: the Great
Commission, preparation of Israel to receive their Messiah, and
for saving faith. ELDV's definition violated linguistics by
ignoring context and forcing the context of national Israel upon
the Great Commission and saving faith.
I.A. Great Commission.
ELDV's 2nd Affirm:
Water baptism is "most likely simultaneous with the main verb."
Participles relate to the main verb as: means, manner, or result.
Here, water baptism is the means to make a disciple.
LAO's 2nd Denial: Where is your scripture to support your
unsubstantiated opinion? Formal Bible debates require Bible
verses or peer-reviewed articles. Since you have not used either,
your response is rescinded.
Scripture clearly shows temporal separation. Cornelius shows a
short time span. The Spirit's saving baptism comes before non-
saving water baptism. Jesus (Who needed no salvation) waited 30
years for His baptism. The purpose was to announce the beginning
of His public ministry. Already saved Noah waited at 120-590
years after being justified for his water baptism. Clearly, water
baptism is NOT for justification and is an act of sanctification.
Scripture gives millions of OT saints where salvation did not
include water baptism. Paul uses Abraham as an example of
justification by faith alone (Rom 4:3,5) regardless of sacrament
(9-11) or testament (16, 23-24). Jesus used the murmuring
Israelites (Num 21) who only had to LOOK at the serpent. They
didn't have to offer sacrifices, repent or get circumcised. Peter
used Noah who was ALREADY saved before The Flood. Since there is
only ONE FAITH (Eph 4:5), the lack of water baptism completely
denies any need for any such sacrament for justification.
Water baptism IS separated from justification by time and
activity. It is NOT the means to make a disciple (like Jesus).
Water baptism is the result of saving faith that marks the
beginning of new life in Christ (like Noah).
I.B. National Israel
ELDV's 2nd Affirm:
Peter preached the need for baptism. In Acts 3, if Peter is
preaching a Jewish Gospel to the Jews, we have a hard time with
passages like Galatians 1:6-9 and Galatians 2:6-10. James is not
looking for Jesus' Kingdom in Acts 15 as he references Amos 9:11-
12. Thus, Peter's Acts 2 message was the fulfillment of Amos 9.
LAO's 2nd Denial: ELDV uses Gal 1 & 2 in confusion. When one
denies the sufficiency of Christ's Cross in justification, there
are usually other fall outs as well. This secondary fallout
denies God's faithfulness to His covenantal promises given to
Israel. It denies that God can do two things at one: one on a
national level with Israel and one on an individual level with
all who would believe in Jesus. Peter wasn't preaching a
different gospel of salvation. He emphasized the need to repent
of national blindness regarding Jesus their Messiah Whom they
crucified. Jesus will return with vengeance on that UNTOWARD
GENERATION. It is an attribute to the power of the gospel message
that even with an emphasis that wasn't salvific that people still
get saved.
ELDV refutes Acts 2 by appealing to Acts 15 and the secondary
appeal to Amos 9. His Amos 9 appeal only referenced the first
half of the passage. The very next verses emphasize Israel's
return (Amos 9:13-15). Even ELDV's refutation denies his own
proposition. Even 20 some years after the Resurrection, the
apostles are still looking for the restoration of national
Israel. How is it that a Bible preacher only sees two verses out
of a paragraph?
I.C. Saving Faith I.C.1. Remission of sins
ELDV's 2nd Affirm:
Water baptism is linked to remission of sins: "remission of sins"
is by faith in Jesus (Acts 13:38-39); "forgiveness of sins" is by
faith in Jesus (Acts 26:18); "remission of sins" through faith
(Rom 3:25); "forgiveness of sins" through Jesus' blood (Eph 1:7);
salvation by hearing and believing (Eph 1:13-14); and
"forgiveness of sins" by faith in Jesus & through His blood (Col
1:4,14). While water baptism is not mentioned in these passages,
it does not explain the process by which believers receive remission of sins. Acts 2:38 provides this key.
LAO's 2nd Denial: ELDV's self-destruction is good enough for me!
It is my pleasure to accept his view that the remission of sins
through water baptism is not found in scripture! Rather than use
the verses quoted, he returns to already invalidated error,
twists it out of context, redefines it according to human-
centeredness, and uses it to repudiate the greater weight of
scripture. A proper refutation is not an appeal to material
already repudiated. ELDV has failed to link salvific remission of
sins to water baptism.
I.C.2 Col 2: WITHOUT HANDS
ELDV's 2nd Affirm:
Baptism is a type of circumcision. Baptism performs the same
functions as circumcision in the Israelite covenant. Baptism
signifies the cutting off of the "man of sin."
LAO's 2nd Denial: First, Israel's covenant was a national
covenant. New born males were included in general blessings
simply by birth. While some hold that baptism is a type of
circumcision, no child was ever saved by circumcision. ELDV's
errant equation is so false that girls immediately see the
problem. If salvation depends on circumcision, they will never be
saved! EDLV appeals to a teaching that was soundly repudiated by
the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) and Paul in Romans and Galatians.
Second, Abraham is an example of all OT saints who were saved
without circumcision long before the Mosaic covenant. His faith
is a sufficient example for all who believe (Rom 4:11). If there
is but ONE FAITH, then circumcision does not belong to any plan
of redemption. Would ELDV suggest that there are multiple plans
of redemption: one for us, one for Israelites and one for OT
Gentiles when scripture dictates ONE FAITH?
Third, Paul shows that saving circumcision is of the inward
spirit (Rom 2:25-29). Anything that can be seen is temporal while
the unseen things are eternal (2 Cor 4:18). If baptism (or
circumcision) can be seen, then it does not save. The only saving
baptism is done by God's Spirit (1 Cor 12:13) Who seals unto the
Day of Redemption (Eph 4:30).
The definition of "remission of sins" depends on context. One
cannot violate basic linguistics rules just because various
denominations teach water baptism saves. Acts 2 is for Israelites
alone. Col 2 demonstrates that saving baptism is done WITHOUT
HANDS by the operation of God. The Great Commission is toward the
whole world to make disciples by faith. Water baptism is
commanded (Jesus), normal (Cornelius) but not required (Abraham)
for justification.
II. SALVATION II.A. Justification and sanctification.
ELDV's 2nd Affirm:
ELDV did "not have any significant objection" to LAO's
presentation of ELDV's conditional process salvation. We are in
need of an external source of salvation. Justification is not
"refined in the NT" and only happens through obedience.
Sanctification is consecration, purification and the effect of
consecration. Justification and sanctification are inseparable (1
Cor 1:30).
LAO's 2nd Denial: Time after time ELDV ignores tense and voice,
twists sanctification verses out of context, redefines them as a
process, and blends them into justification. The 40 some uses of
justification show without exception that salvific activity is
associated with God alone. Humans are only passive with respect
to justification. Present tense sanctification is human activity
in spiritual growth. First year Greek would eliminate this
stumbling.
His reference to 1 Cor 1:30 ignores that justification and
sanctification are strictly PAST tense. PAST tense sanctification
is God's activity where He sets aside believers unto Himself. At
the moment of faith, both justification and sanctification are
historically settled. They are EVENTS.
I CHALLENGE ELDV to show one instance of a present tense use of
justification that links to water baptism, human activity or
sanctification. I know ahead of time that he will fail – and his
conditional process view of salvation with it. Ignorance of
tenses and activity shows a frightening misunderstanding of both
justification and sanctification.
II.B. 2 Cor 5:19-21
ELDV's 2nd Affirm:
It requires much theological extrapolation to demand that this
verse teaches that God imputes Christ's righteousness to us. …
unless Mr. Olson demonstrates how any of this is directly
relevant to the proposition at hand, it is no longer necessary to
suffer such tangents.
LAO's 2nd Denial: Wow! A common sense reading is cavalierly
dismissed. If we dismiss God's Word – any theology is possible.
This passage is well known as the "Great Exchange." It is a very
clear passage on imputation wrt sin and righteousness. The Greek
word for imputation (logizomai) is used 41 times. With respect to
justification, it shows God's activity alone and directly
renounces ELDV's conditional human process view of justification.
Since it is God's activity alone, no human obedience can change,
effect or alter God's act.
This is not a tangent. In actuality, water baptism is the tangent
for justification is the chief article by which the Church and an
individual stands or falls (Luther).
III. SPECIFIC VERSES A. MARK 16:16:
1. DUBIOUS FOUNDATION. LAO's 1st Denial: The passage is not found
in the most reliable Greek manuscript traditions.
ELDV's 2nd Affirm:
This argument can be made. However, LAO overstates his case.
There are many manuscripts from before the third century. Even if
Mark 16:9-20 are spurious, it certainly does no injury to the
necessity of water baptism for remission of sin. Plenty of verses
support it.
LAO's 2nd Denial: The manuscript record reveals that the reading
which appears in the majority of MSS is absent from the two
oldest MSS (Aleph and B), from the Old Latin Codex Bobiensis, the
Sinaitic Syriac, about one hundred Armenian MSS, and the two
oldest Georgian MSS. [fn1]
The case is NOT overstated. 100% of Greek copies before the third
century do not have the spurious ending. The spurious ending is
absence in the copies in four language groups. Manuscripts with
this error are related to one Greek manuscript dated to the third
century.
ELDV's whole apologetic takes two verses conducive to human-
centeredness, redefines them to suit self-righteous obedience,
and then uses them to repudiate the great weight of scripture
that declares justification by faith. For ELDV, "plenty" means
verses conducive to contextual and philosophical abuse or the
violent redefinition of sanctification verses into justification.
2. NEGATIVE FALLACY
ELDV's 2nd Affirm:
LAO's view is based on the theological speculations. To assert
that John 3:18 means that any who merely "believe" will not be
condemned runs afoul of Matthew 7:21-23 and James 2:19. John
refers to water baptism in John 3:5. LAO would have to
demonstrate that faith without baptism can provide the means by
which remission of sin can be gained and therefore one can be
found acceptable to God.
LAO's 2nd Denial: ELDV did not address the negative fallacy
error. Hence, it still stands as a denouncement of Mark's
corrupted ending. Instead, he hid behind Matt 7, James 2, and
John 3:5.
Matt 7:21-23 shows people can do good works without being saved.
Good works have nothing to do with justification. ELDV uses a
works passage because his unbiblical cheerfully grabs
sanctification verses and relates them to justification. Works do
not relate to justification. James 2:19 is abused for Jesus did
not die on the Cross to save devils. Devils have already rejected
Jesus and their fate is sealed. It is wrong to imply their
certain faith with certain damnation can be related in any way to
humans. Neither one of these verses has any relation to the new
birth in John 3.
In John 3, Jesus makes three attempts to teach that the new birth
is "from above" (anwthen). Thus, the new birth is not associated
with human activity. In 3:6, Jesus continues the contrast ELDV
misses from just looking at v5. Physical life is contrasted with
eternal life. Physical life comes through the waters of birth;
spiritual life comes by God's Spirit! Verse 7 supplies the
bookend to verse 5 showing that the new birth is spiritual from
above and not from human activity below. ELDV ignores the
contrast and redefines it as water baptism.
Jesus' third illustration is the brazen serpent. When the
murmuring Hebrews were disciplined with snakes, God had Moses
build a brazen serpent on a pole. For salvation, all the people
needed to do was LOOK at the brazen serpent. Jesus equates this
look with "whosoever believeth" has everlasting life (John 3:16)!
Here is but one of many verses that show faith without baptism
results in eternal life. These three illustrations show
justification is an EVENT from above. ELDV's wayward appeal to
John 3:5 is really a support for God's activity in justification
and a denial of conditional human-centered process justification.
B. ACTS 2:38: ISRAEL. LAO's 1st Denial: Acts 1 and Acts 3 show
that Peter was looking for the restoration of national Israel.
Context dictates that Peter's message is to national Israel so
that they will repent and avoid the coming judgment on their
UNTOWARD GENERATION.
ELDV's 2nd Affirm:
Acts 1 occurred before the Spirit descended. The disciples are
indeed looking for the restoration of Israel. There will be no
restoration of Israel. The "times of refreshing" in Acts 3 is
denied by appealing to the same gospel message preached to Jew
or Gentile (Gal 1:6-9; 2:6-10). LAO unabashedly makes Paul and
Peter conflict. The facts are: 1. Israel is never promised
physical restoration for all prophetic promises point to the
spiritual Kingdom of Christ (Col 1:13, Rom 15:4, 2 Pet 1:19). 2.
Peter does not speak of physical restoration of Israel in Acts 3.
3. If LAO is right, Peter is a liar for Israel was never
restored. 4. If LAO is right, Paul is a liar for preaching a
different gospel. 5. This does not explain Cornelius, the
Philippian jailer, and many other baptisms. Acts 2:38 is no less
relevant today than it was in the first century.
LAO's 2nd Denial: wrt Acts 1, we are in agreement. Some of ELDV's
confusion wrt Acts 2, 3, & 15 was dealt with in I.B. above.
Regarding Acts 3, Christ's coming is viewed positively. First,
the verb "restore" of 1:6 reappears as the noun "restoration" in
3:21. This parallel language indicates a parallel in subject
content.[fn2] In both places the restoration of national Israel
is the topic. They "bookend" Acts 2.
Second, these blessings are those spoken of by the prophets since
the world began (3:21). Moses pointed to Jesus being raised up
(22). Peter appeals to God's eternal covenant (25) and blessing
(26). Isa 54: promises national dominion, prosperity and
security. Isa 56:14-19 promises restoration. Ezek 17, 34, 37
discusses revival of the Davidic Empire. Deut 30[fn3], Jer 31-33
and Ezek 36 show God will regather Israel before the new
covenant. Zech 3, 6, 9, 12 mentions Israel's restoration and
messianic hope. Haggai 2 shows how YHWH will break the power of
foreign nations and wealth coming to Jerusalem. God will gather
and purify His scattered people (Zeph 3:8-9). Amos 9:14-15
promises that after Israel is scattered and disciplined that God
will plant them again. Huge segments of many OT books are devoted
to Israel's national restoration. In the NT, Paul preaches for
the "hope of Israel" (Acts 28:20). God will again restore Israel
(Rom 9-11) and make a new covenant with them (Heb 8:8).
Revelation mentions a significant remnant during the Tribulation.
ELDV apparently has overlooked much of his Bible.
Additionally, Peter preaches the same message throughout Acts.
God raised up Jesus to give repentance to Israel and the
remission of sins (Acts 5:30-31). He retells the same message in
his recounting of Cornelius (Acts 11). Peter is quite adamant
about national Israel's future blessings. So is James for so he
prayed (Acts 15; cf Amos 9:11-15). Paul spent three chapters
weaving theology around Israel's restoration (Rom 9-11). This is
serious support for the restoration of national Israel. National
Israel is interwoven throughout Scripture.
Paul and Peter don't contrast. God's plan for national Israel has
nothing to do with an individual's requirement to believe on the
Lord Jesus. Evidently ELDV doesn't think God can do two things at
once. Peter's exhortation was for national repentance to hurry
the promised restoration of national Israel. This has nothing to
do with individual salvation.
C. ACTS 8:34-37: THE GRILLING LAO's 1st Denial: 1 Cor 1 shows
that baptism is not part of the gospel message. Philip only
baptized the Eunuch after an assurance of justification by faith.
ELDV's 2nd Affirm:
1 Cor 1 is directed to the problem of confusing the message with
the messenger. Why would the eunuch make that request unless
Philip had preached about the need for immersion in water when preaching "Jesus?"
LAO's 2nd Denial: One can correct the message – messenger problem
without denying baptism in the gospel message. One cannot dismiss
the denial by an appeal to an unrelated event. Paul was
commissioned (apostello) that Gentiles might receive remission of
sins by faith (Acts 26:17-18). There is no mention of water
baptism in this commission. Paul's gospel message follows his own
justification experience: by faith before Ananias. Paul
repeatedly retold his gospel message without one word of water
baptism. His denial of water baptism matches his insistence that
salvation is by the foolishness of preaching to all who believe
(1 Cor 1:21).
Why did Philip preach about baptism? One is not restricted in any
means in the presentation of the gospel message. The Eunuch was
reading a prophetic passage to begin with. Who knows where the
conversation went? Philip's grilling matches Paul's denouncement
of water baptism salvation.
D. ACTS 10:47: TEMPORAL SEQUENCE LAO's 1st Denial: ELDV ignores
the temporal sequence. Spirit baptism (justification) comes
BEFORE water baptism (sanctification).
ELDV's 2nd Affirm:
LAO has not provided Scripture documenting the necessity of
salvation because of the presence of the Spirit. Does Peter say
that Cornelius and his men were "saved" in the same way as they?
Acts 11:15-17. The Spirit's presence was to show Peter that the
Gentiles were to receive the Gospel. Peter was to baptize them
for the remission of sins.
LAO's 2nd Denial: Peter clearly says that all who believe in
Jesus shall receive the remission of sins. Peter does not equate
remission of sins with water baptism. ELDV runs from the clear
temporal sequence by resorting to faulty interpretations of Mark
16 and Acts 2 as the basis to repudiate the scriptural evidences
to justification by faith. Since ELDV cannot deny the
temporality, he scurries for a question. Apparently, he doesn't
care which question – even if the answer to that question further
demolishes his error.
His question of salvation via the Spirit's presence ignores
scriptures clarity. The new birth is "of the Spirit" (John
3:5,7). The Spirit quickens and gives eternal life (John 6:63).
The law of the Spirit of life frees (Rom 8:2). The lack of the
Spirit denies eternal life (Rom 8:9). The Spirit is life (Rom
8:10). The Spirit baptizes believers into Christ (1 Cor 12:13).
The Spirit seals and provides the earnest of eternal life (2 Cor
1:22, 5:5; Eph 1:13-14). The Spirit gives life (2 Cor 3:6).
Believers receive the Spirit by faith – not by works (Gal
3:2,14). The body without the Spirit is dead (Jam 2:26). This is
tremendous evidence that verifies that the Spirit's presence
secures eternal life without baptism, worksor anything else.
E. ROMANS 6:3-7: BOOK CONTEXT LAO's 1st Denial: ELDV ignores the
first five chapters. He misses depravity that denies the
potential for human obedience (Rom 1:19-3:19) and that only
Christ's righteous satisfies God (Rom 3:20-31). Justification is
by faith apart from sacraments (Rom 4-5). Baptism comes before
sanctification (Rom 8). Rom 6 is spiritual baptism since "water"
is not used in the entire book. ELDV violates the inspired
contextual sequence.
ELDVs 2nd Affirm:
How would God condemn human obedience in Romans 1:9-3:19 yet say
that His purpose is to bring forth obedience (Rom 1:5)? Paul
argues for Abraham's justification of faith apart from works in
Romans 4 yet James in James 2:14-26 speaks of Abraham's
justification by faith in works.
Paul condemns salvation by heredity and law keeping. Nowhere,
however, does Paul deny that we should be obedient. The process
of being made right with God requires God's grace, and cannot be
done by ourselves alone ... yet we have to have the faith; we
have to be the ones to accept His grace. WE should present our
instruments of God for the sake of righteousness (Romans 6:13).
LAO's 2nd Denial: I don't need much of a rebuttal here. ELDV did
not challenge the contextual sequence of justification by faith;
then sanctification. His comments are sideshows. The context of
Rom 1:9-3:19 deals with human attempts to please God on the basis
of self-righteousness which differs significantly from God's
purpose in Rom 1:5 for Christ-centered obedience. Human-centered
righteousness is denied; Christ-centered obedience is praised.
ELDV once more mechanically grabs a sanctification verse and
reinterprets it as justification. He stumbles so because he does
not truly understand either justification or sanctification.
In James 2:14-26, ELDV ignores all possible contexts. The
overarching context is already saved believers. He urges them to
provide works worthy of their standing in Christ. It is an error
to make spiritual growth of sanctification a requirement for
justification. We expect the baby to talk + walk sometime after
birth. We don't demand maturity as a requirement for birth. Proof
of life happens AFTER birth.
The immediate context is Abraham's justification by faith (James
2:23; Gen. 15:6) twenty years before Mt. Moriah (Gen. 22; James
2:24). Abraham is an example of justification by faith (Rom 4:2-
3,13) apart from any obedience and sacrament (4:4-12). The
promise is voided by faith + obedience (4:14). In 4:16,
justification is by grace through faith. Justification was
IMPUTED to Abraham (4:22) by passive faith; EVENT – not process.
James 2:23 with 24 shows the total picture. Justification by
PASSIVE faith is the new birth; sanctification by ACTIVE faith is
spiritual growth. The righteousness of works before men depends
on the righteousness of faith before God. "Faith without works is
dead" can only be used as a means for JUSTIFIED BELIEVERS to
verify their justification before others. These two must not be
confused. Error forces the sanctification part of Abraham's life
to be a requirement for justification oblivious to Abraham's
historic justification.
He mentioned that we have to accept God's grace by faith. ELDV
would never make this statement if he truly knew the distinctions
between justification and sanctification. His half truth ignores
that biblical Greek portrays this act of faith exclusively in the
PASSIVE voice. Faith in Jesus is not an activity of any sort.
Jesus used the LOOK and LIVE illustration in John 3 to deny any
human activity beyond PASSIVE faith. Failure to do a basic
investigation into the voices of justification results in
dramatic deficiencies. There are many sanctification verses that
can be so abused.
F. Gal 3:26-27: SPIRITUAL LANGUAGE LAO's 1st Denial: Only the
unseen Spirit's baptism (1 Cor 12:13) is eternal (2 Cor 4:18).
ELDV wrongly redefined spiritual as physical.
ELDV's 2nd Affirm:
We partake of the Lord's Supper and in doing share in the
spiritual communion of the saints.
LAO's 2nd Denial: First, EDLV confuses justification with
sanctification – again. The partaking of the Lord's Supper has no
part of justification. It is a key feature of sanctified
obedience. This is why I spent so much energy exposing ELDV's
errant view of justification. His whole apologetic is to grab
sanctification verses and twist them into unbiblical support for
process justification.
Second, EDLV failed to address the seen versus unseen concept.
Things seen are temporal; things unseen are eternal. He simply
cannot dismiss this. Water baptism is visible and temporal.
Spirit baptism is invisible and eternal. ELDV's refutation is
nothing but continued confusion of justification and
sanctification. This context is spiritual.
G. I PETER 3:19-21: OT CONTEXT. LAO's 1st Denial: ELDV ignored
context. Noah was just, perfect and righteous BEFORE The Flood.
The whole Flood Saga belongs to sanctification.
ELDV's 2nd Affirm:
LAO missed Peter's point. To assert that Peter's use of Noah
requires us to import everything said about Noah is nonsensical
and unnecessary. Peter's emphasis is that eight were saved and
that in an ark on top of the water. When all perished under the
water, the eight were saved above water. As eight souls were
saved above water, so now souls are saved by being immersed in
water.
LAO's 2nd Denial: Everything said about Noah happens AFTER
justification. This isn't a question of interpretation. The Flood
had nothing to do with Noah's justification.
ELDV first says that Peter's emphasis was the ark on top of the
water but then we are expected to believe that Peter's emphasis
switched to being immersed in the water. This is typical of his
"Yes" and "No" apologetic that ignores context. The real emphasis
is neither "on top" or "immersed." The real emphasis is AFTER
justification.
The flood saga demonstrated the severing of ALREADY SAVED Noah's
ties to the old world of corruption and judgment as it ushered
him into the new world of life. When Noah disembarked from the
Ark, he built an altar to God as an appeal of a cleansed
conscience to live the new life under God's control and
direction. Likewise, water baptism is to be used as an AFTER
justification appeal to God based upon an ALREADY saved
conscience. The altar is Peter's focus; not the water.
In addition to typology confusion, ELDV contrasts the Bible in
several key ways. He believes that water saves; Bible shows that
water brought death and destruction (II Pet 2:5, 3:6). He wants
salvation to come through the water; Bible shows that
justification came BEFORE the waters (Gen 6:8-9). He seeks safety
from going through the waters; Bible shows that safety was inside
the ARK (a type of Christ). He wants baptism to be an appeal to
God for justification; context shows that Noah built the altar as
an appeal to God to live for Him in the new life for
sanctification. He contrasts the biblical story at every point.
Water baptism happens AFTER justification as a picture of a
dramatic change in life and an appeal to live for God in the new
world! How much clearer does it have to be? Only blind loyalty to
human-centered self-righteousness could miss such obvious
context.
H. ONE BAPTISM
ELDV'S 2nd Affirm:
Eph 4:4-6 is important. We have one Body, one Spirit, one Lord
and one baptism. John baptized in water but ye will be baptized
in the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4-5; 11:15-17). Spirit baptism is
followed by water baptism (Acts 10:47-48). Water saves (1 Pet 3).
Immersion in the Holy Spirit is limited in the NT to two
examples, both of which are miraculous and for the purpose of
signs to the people, and the latter example even includes
explicit immersion in water. The baptism most often seen in the
NT and the action in which believers share a part is immersion in
water. Thus, Eph 4:4 is immersion in water.
LAO's 2nd Denial: Let's see: the body, the Spirit and the Lord
are spiritual – but baptism is physical? EDLV's human-centered
philosophy forces his inconsistency! The common sense teaches a
consistent application to all aspects. In the Acts 1 and Acts 11
passages,"but" (from the Greek "de") is a contrast. John
baptized in water; BUT you shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit.
The first is physical, temporal, and non-salvific. The latter is
spiritual, eternal, and salvific. EDLV's denies the obvious
contrast and redefines the word.
Most NT baptisms are water because they come after justification–
not for justification. This is the biblical norm. EDLV repeatedly
confuses justification and sanctification. He takes passages that
speak of water baptism out of context and violently thrusts them
upon Holy Spirit baptism passages. Has he never read 1 Cor 12:13
where the Spirit baptizes all into Christ? Has he never
understood the temporal sequence of Acts 10? Spirit baptism is
ALWAYS before water baptism. Spirit baptism is present even when
water baptism is absent (Adam, Job, Noah, Abraham, the paralytic,
etc.). This is a terrible violation of basic linguistics.
III. CONCLUSION.
Every one of ELDV's so-called proofs has been shown and shown
again to be built upon a human-centered, self-righteous
philosophy. His presentation: denies Christ (unwittingly),
violates basic Greek grammar (Matt 28, tense and voices for
justification and sanctification, exegesis of 1 Cor 1:30), abuses
context (Acts 2, Rom 6, James 2, 1 Pet 3 w Gen 6, remission of
sins), breaks rules of linguistics (remission of sins, one
baptism), hides behind sideshows (1 Cor 1:14-17; message-
messenger), employs unbiblical redefinitions (John 3:5, Col 2,
Gal 3, one baptism), confuses justification with sanctification
(1 Cor 1:30, Eunuch, James 2, Rom 6), cavalierly dismisses God's
Word where it openly refutes his view (2 Cor 5:19, imputation,
numerous OT and NT references to Israel's restoration), builds
error on spurious passages (Mark 16), falls to logic errors
(negative fallacy, contrasts in John 3:5-7), misinterprets types
(1 Pet 3), confounds Spiritual with physical (1 Cor 12:13, 2 Cor
4:18, Acts 2, 1 Pet 3), and ignores inspired temporal sequences
(Acts 10:47, Rom 6, 1 Pet 3 w Gen 6-7).
If justification depends on human activity: faith is voided,
God's promises are nullified, and the Cross is canceled (Rom
4:14; I Cor 1:17c). His water-baptism-saves proposition was
exposed and discredited and is now again refuted and invalidated.
This proposition must be rejected today with the same vigor that
the Reformers rejected this same system in the sixteenth century.
Jesus is the WAY, the truth and eternal life. No one goes to the
Father but by HIM!
Lloyd Olson
FOOTNOTES [fn1] Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek NT
(Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2000), 102.
[fn2] Krodel, Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament
(Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986), 104–5.
[fn3] Charles Baylis, "Repentance In Acts In Light Of Deuteronomy
30," Michigan Theological Journal 1:1 (Spr 1990): 31 shows Acts
3:19 precisely reflects Deuteronomy 30:1–6.